from the justice-not-served dept

An anonymous Dallas Stars hockey fan alerts us to the quite worrisome news that the Justice Department seems to think it's a valuable use of their time to threaten blogs and community sites that they could be held liable if anyone in their comments posts a link to infringing material. You can see it in a "Welcome" post on the Defending Big D blog:

Streaming Links:

This is something I'll address in a separate post, but we can no longer allow links to be posted to online streams of the Dallas Stars games. While we have yet to be contacted, other SB Nation sites have been contacted by the Department of Justice. Because our site is 'allowing' these links to be posted, we can be held liable.

Now, this raises all sorts of questions. Why is the Justice Department threatening blogs like this? Was it really the Justice Department, or was it ICE (a part of Homeland Security)? What other sites have been contacted beyond SB Nation? What is the Justice Department saying to these sites and is it an accurate reflection of the law? And why don't SB Nation and other sites point out to the Justice Department that, under the DMCA safe harbors, there is a clear process for the removal of links to infringing content -- and it also provides safe harbors for the sites themselves?

My guess is that the Justice Department and ICE, via Operation In Our Sites, are trying to imply criminal copyright infringement here (otherwise, why else would the DOJ be involved?). But that's a much higher bar, and it's unlikely that a comment could be criminal copyright infringement. The link itself would have to be for profit, for starters. And while SB Nation or the site might make money, that's entirely separate from the action of the user. Either way, this is quite worrisome and seems like a massive step out of bounds by the Justice Department.

As the guy who submitted it wrote:

We fans want to watch our favorite hockey players play our favorite game. Since the NHL hasn't seemed to provide a convenient, reasonable means to watching games, "unauthorized" streaming exists. Why is the DOJ doing the NHL's dirty work? Some would argue that you can watch every NHL game on their streaming service, Center Ice. Wrong. You can't watch the team for the town you're in. You can watch everything BUT your local team. Since local teams are usually the teams that people want to watch, this renders Center Ice rather useless.

But that's the idea. They seem to think that if such things are useless due to government decree, then they can pretend that the world markets are not changing.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

As a Dallas Stars fan, I will say there are other options to attending a game live(provided they are at home). Unfortunately they are severely limited. You can watch a select few games a season on a local channel partner(usually 25 to 30% of the games in a season or less) or you can watch on one of the Cable partners(requiring additional monthly cost, possibly already being paid). These partnerships are usually set up by the local team, with the exception of Versus(I think).
Luckily, the Stars Organization understands the financial costs of attending live games and usually has ticket promotions allowing fans to attend at a reasonable rate. Sometime for as little as $15-$20 per game plus parking if you choose to park in provided lots(you can park free at some local restaurants who also provide bus service at no cost to/from the game.
I can, however, understand the other fans frustration as some clubs have ridiculous pricing to attend their games.

Re:

I have to agree with the AC above. Ticket prices for the Stars generally are pretty reasonable, but the NHL (and NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.) needs to accept that making it downtown to the AAC for a 7pm puck drop on a weeknight isn't always possible.

The leagues are unwise to continue to allow tv networks to force them into deals that forbid online broadcasts and enforce local market blackouts. As much as the cable companies want to deny it, cutting the cord is increasingly popular, especially within the younger demographic. And it's the younger fans that the NHL should be most interested in attracting, not demonizing.

Re: Re:

Options (from a Kings fan):

1. Attend live. $30/game minimum (maybe less on some games because of a deal).
2. Center Ice online. $160/year and you must not be in your team's "cable area".
3. Center Ice on cable/satellite. $160/year and you get all games (except those on Versus), including your team's own.
4. A separate cable/satellite tier for Versus. This will cost you about $10-$20/month extra for about 3-8 games, depending on coverage.
5. Cable. Regional Sports Networks are usually in the basic package and typically show between 40 and 75 games, depending on the team.
6. Local. NBC affiliates may choose your team 1-2 times after New Year's Day. Also, Dallas had a UHF channel (51 or something) that showed quite a few games in past years.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Which is exactly why I gave up on sports completely. I'm not going to play the game anymore. Go ahead, keep changing the rules...I'll keep changing what I am interested in until I find a form of entertainment that caters to me.

Re: Re:

Re:

So... what's alternative? The NHL is failing to provide a service people can watch, so either they watch the game through "unauthorised means", or they.... don't watch it at all. Remember, the legal paid option is already out of the window since the NHL isn't providing it.

Without offering a product the customer are willing to pay for, the NHL have failed to make a sale either way - legally or illegally. Yet, this is the fault of "pirates"?

"you support these obviously illegal streaming sites "

Point out where he supports them. I see him criticising the NHL for not providing a legitimate alternative. I see him criticising heavy handed tactics by both (presumably) ICE and the NHL. Where's the "support"?

Re: Re: Re:

That's not a viable alternative. That's ignorance manifesting itself through ignorance. My time is not your time so do not expect that my time and responsibilities can be allotted around your time. And whose going to feed these kids and change the diapers whilst ignorami insist that, as a fan, I do whatever it takes to show up in person?

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

There is a legitimate alternative, home games are blacked out to 'encourage' fans to attend home games in person.

Legitimate =/= reasonable, nor convenient.

Let's just compare the time commitment between the options.

Watching a hockey game on TV or online takes about 2 hours? Maybe less?

With a quick look at Wikipedia, it appears that the Dallas Stars are the only NHL team in Texas, or practically the entire south central part of the US. But to be fair, we'll choose somewhere in the same metropolitan area. We'll say Fort Worth. Quickest Google maps directions says 38 minutes, one way. So 76 minutes round trip travel time. Assuming zero traffic.

Now, you definitely need to get there ahead of time to find a parking spot, get through the gate, find your seat, and such. We'll call that 30 minutes.

Then 2 hours for the game.

Then its time to leave. Yeah, get out the exit, get to your car, and get through the mess of the parking lot. I'll be generous and give you 20 minutes, apparently every other driver just gets out of your way.

2 hours + 76 minutes + 30 minutes + 20 minutes = over 4 hours

That's double the time commitment.

If I'm mistaken about the 2 hours it normally takes a game to be played, and its shorter, this is even worse in our comparison. How about if you're in another city. Next large city I see nearby would by Tyler - that's a 2 hour drive each way.

Now, I did not even touch on monetary commitment. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Bottom line: if the content producers (in this case, the NHL), don't offer an experience that is both reasonable and convenient to their customer's wishes, then their customers will not be reasonable to the content producers wishes (getting their money).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

not that it matters but a hockey game is closer to 3 hours. Also you are being exceedingly generous with the drive time seeing as how you and 70,000 of your closest friends are all trying to use the same road.

But yes, saying not enough of you made it to the game tonight so no one gets to watch it is exceedingly childish, its like the NHL just picked up its puck and when home.

Re: Re: Re:

going to see a game in person is not a legit alternative to seeing a game at home. people are not staying away from a home game because they can stream the game at home. they don't go to home games because it's too expensive.
watching a game at home/ online means those who are working or have other responsibilities to attend to can still enjoy the home team. there is not a good reason to blackout a team game based on location, because you just piss off the customer base, and then those people give up on watching the team they want to see, in person or at home.
Maybe they should look into THAT being the reason the teams supposedly lose so much money (that, and the retarded amount of money they pay their players).
I watch the Cap's here in DC all the time. I never go to see a game because it is too expensive to get there, get the ticket, enjoy the game, and get home. forget eating or souvenirs.

Re: Re:

Paul, I think you need to stand back and look at the business implications to understand why it doesn't happen.

Let's try basic math: If you add 500 people per home game (at $20 a ticket) you get 10k a game, 40 something home games, you have between 400 and 500k extra income (ignoring concession stand spending etc).

Sell the rights for local TV? Probably not much money in it, nobody is bidding enough to offset the loss of ticket sales. So for the business, there really isn't any choice.

As for Mike supporting the streaming sites, he doesn't use the words directly. However, his continues posting of these sorts of stories and expressing dismay and even scorn towards the companies who fail to live up to his standards is more than enough to work from.

Re: Re: Re:

"Sell the rights for local TV? Probably not much money in it, nobody is bidding enough to offset the loss of ticket sales. So for the business, there really isn't any choice."

That's a fundamental business model problem, then. Trying to force local people to attend by removing a legal option available to everybody else in the country isn't a viable long term strategy, piracy or no piracy.

"As for Mike supporting the streaming sites, he doesn't use the words directly"

So, we're back to "I haven't got any proof, but I just KNOW that's what he means, even though he doesn't say it!". That's not an argument, that's the opinion of someone who refuses to listen to inconvenient facts, even when the facts are the stated opinions of the person you're attacking.

Try listening to what people actually say instead of injecting your own assumptions. You'll certainly see less strawmen, and maybe even formulate an argument that doesn't get dismissed as "yet another AC troll" - an apt description thus far.

Re: Re:

"The correct answer is to sell the rights for local TV broadcast and make the game as accessible as possible on all platforms."

Not true. While Dallas is a large market, and they have a nice arena with plenty of amenities, it should also be said that Hockey isn't native to the area. While it has 6 times the population of Calgary, I would suspect (no proof, just my feelings) that they have maybe 10% of the hockey fans of Calgary. Think of it as the differnce between say Cincinatti and Green Bay. One is larger than the other, but one has way more football fans per capita.

Dallas effectively has a "fair weather" fanbase. When the team does good, there is a bandwagon. When they do badly, you have an empty room. All the TV in the world isn't going to change that perception.

Re:

It doesn't matter what side of the argument you're on, everyone does the "me, me, me, me!" at one point or another. It is human nature to fight against perceived injustices they feel specifically targets them. Doesn't matter who you are. In fact you're doing it right now, and likely with every comment you've ever made on Techdirt. You are under the mistaken belief that your opinion is the only one that matters and everyone else is your enemy and wrong. Every post you make equates to a "me!", which likely adds up to a lot of them. Part of the problem with right and wrong is that they're abstract and subjective, much like your many biased comments. Personally I wish both sides would stop acting entitled and childish, and start working together to find a solution that is equatable to both parties. Why is that too much to ask? Overcome your nature by helping to make the world better for everyone instead of just complaining about it with your myopic, introverted attitude. Otherwise you're just as blameworthy as those you whine about.

SB Nation

Don't know how familiar readers here are with SB Nation. It's a chain or franchise operation which develops one site for each major sports team. I follow a few of their baseball blogs. It's generally high-quality fan-generated writing, ranging from analysis to cheering, with comments. Also lots of link roundups to mainstream media coverage of the teams.

If SB Nation can be threatened, then no site with user-generated content is safe.

As a three year subscriber to the NHL Center Ice internet edition, I can say the NHL provides both the home and away feeds in the stream. So the paid/legal option is there but I understand why people would stream things illegally. I also don't understand why the various sports leagues don't have a way for fans to view their favorite teams out of market. I get that they don't want to upset the TV contracts. It seems to me that if the fan isn't watching or can't watch a game on tv, then the ad dollars that would come from the tv contract doesn't even matter.

Simple solution........ Just move well away from your favorite team. And when I say well away I mean more than a 5 hour drive. Stars fans in Houston are very familiar with blackout regs.

Lame...

With that said..... Its their "business" to run how they see fit. We have the right to bitch about blackouts, unfair coverage etc. But NOT to piracy.

At the end of the day it sucks for those who used it (Why didn't I ever know about this?). But maybe it will be for the better..... More people missing games = more upset customers = a potentially larger "Voice".

Re:

The DOJ shouldn't be helping sport teams rake more money out of their fans pockets.

If the NHL wants to have more profit here's a better idea, don't pay people millions of dollars a year just because they can hit a hockey puck really well. If you can pay even an 18 year old who doesn't even have first grade reading or math skills to do something then it's not worth paying anyone over a million dollars to do that something.

My guess is that the Justice Department and ICE, via Operation In Our Sites, are trying to imply criminal copyright infringement here (otherwise, why else would the DOJ be involved?). But that's a much higher bar, and it's unlikely that a comment could be criminal copyright infringement. The link itself would have to be for profit, for starters. And while SB Nation or the site might make money, that's entirely separate from the action of the user. Either way, this is quite worrisome and seems like a massive step out of bounds by the Justice Department.

Let's walk through your "legal argument." Why do you claim that the "link itself would have to be for profit," Mike? Please give the legal foundation for this claim.

And, yeah, you're not a pirate-apologist and you're not pro-piracy. Obviously.

Re: Re:

Sigh. You need to keep reading:

"(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution."

The "or" means it's disjunctive, so either (A), or (B), or (C). Notice that only (A) requires that the criminal make money.

Not only does the criminal not need to make any money, it's also criminal to aid and abet someone else in the commission of criminal infringement. It's just as likely that the DOJ is acting based on a complicity theory.

So, again, to Professor Mike (not you sycophants--I'm not asking you), I ask: What is the legal basis of your claim?

Re: Re:

Sigh. You need to keep reading:

"(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution."

The "or" means it's disjunctive, so either (A), or (B), or (C). Notice that only (A) requires that the criminal make money.

Not only does the criminal not need to make any money, it's also criminal to aid and abet someone else in the commission of criminal infringement. It's just as likely that the DOJ is acting based on a complicity theory.

So, again, to Professor Mike (not you sycophants—I am not asking you), I ask: What is the legal basis of your claim?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hm, thanks for the lesson. But if thats the case then,

"by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,"

What is the retail value of a hockey game, that is not being aired? If you can't buy it how much is its retail value?

Also, is linking distributing? Wouldn't that be the host?

"For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."

So websites are responsible for comments now? If I go to NYT sports forum and post a link can they be arrested? How long does it have to stay up?

Re:

Because to be criminal the law require that a financial component exist?

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Re: Re: Re:

You know that insulting people only makes people less likely to agree with you since it makes them not like you? If you were smart you would have relised that and argued in a nicer way. (Yes, I see the irony of insulting you in this post. No, I do not care. You don't.)

Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

Except by pirating authorized streams? That means criminal conduct on someone's part. It's within reasonable use of resources for DOJ or whatever to try to deter criminal conduct by cheapest means possible. You want they should launch a full investigation that would lead to charges? Then you could yell about waste of money over /hockey/.

Try to grasp that those producing content are justified in controlling it. Or, when it affects you, do we just throw private property out the window? -- In short, regardless how much you like hockey and I despise it, they've PAID for that control, you haven't. -- And won't, just yell and steal.

That and a buck or so will get you a cup of coffee some places, This is again a DEMAND to be entertained, for free, and the childish notion that it must be /obeyed/. -- And of course that childishness is on top of the mis-directed emotions and time spent watching sports contests between millionaires, while you guzzle beer and chips.

SO JUST DON'T WATCH! They'll come around, right, from lost revenue? Or does that premise only work for your side?

Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

, they've PAID for that control, you haven't.

They didn't pay for control. They might have paid for the content, but they didn't pay for control. Unless you mean that they paid the lobbyists that paid the congress critters for that control. But even that would be wrong. The NHL didn't do that, and neither did the Dallas Stars. Others did. I say screw them. Let the NHL and Dallas Stars buy their own lobbyists and stop freeloading off the work of previous lobbyists.

Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

) Certainly they have paid. It's implicit in all the deals, getting the crew there, and every part of broadcasting.

) YOU HAVE NOT PAID. You've NO say in the matter. Your vacant stare at the television is NOT paying,

Tell you what. Enter Mike's little contest just put up. Invest at least a thousand bucks for equipment, software, time, actors, artists, whatever you think will ensure your win. Then tell me that you don't feel a tiny bit proprietary toward the content. -- Oh, and don't forget that you're working for free to get cash for Mike. That should inspire you.

Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '&quot;unauthorized&quot; streaming' come from then?

@ Jay (profile), Oct 6th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

It works elsewhere. You'd be surprised how many people work, put up free content, and money rolls in elsewhere.
------------------------

I assume you refer to Mike's little contest to see how many people will work and how well to add cash to his pocket. -- By the way, there's no clue as to who judges or how, but I'll bet that /I/ couldn't possibly win even if no one else entered. -- And on that line, I frequently work and put up free content right here! But no money rolls my way! Am I not praying fervently enough? Just state all the steps I need take.

Anyway, O fount of surprises, can I expect to see your entry in said contest?

Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

No, they didn't pay for control. They might be expecting copyright controls, but they didn't pay for copyrights. They might have paid for the content, but they didn't pay for control. They might be expecting control, but they didn't pay for it. They paid for the content, they paid people to film it, to broadcast it, to edit it, to do whatever they do with it, and they might expect control. But none of that is what you said.

You said they paid for control. I'm telling you they didn't. I'm not saying they didn't pay money. I'm not saying they have no copyright. I'm saying they didn't pay for control.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '&quot;unauthorized&quot; streaming' come from then?

You've dissolved into repeating variations on semantics so that you'll be "right", yet you haven't at all affected the actual fact that they HAVE control. And the DOJ appears to agree with that. Nor have you in the least justified you or anyone pirating the content. Whoever gets /caught/ pirating it will likely learn that juries don't care for kids who play semantics and will just look away in disgust as they continue to insist "You've no control over ME! You think these iron bars make a prison that can control ME? Ha!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '&quot;unauthorized&quot; streaming' come from then?

I never said they didn't have control. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for it.

I never said the DOJ is wrong in thinking they have control. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for it.

I never said I pirated content, or tried to justify anyone else doing so. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for control.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that what you said was wrong. Had you simply said you meant that they had legal control on the broadcast, then we'd not be having this discussion. But you didn't just say they had legal control, you said they paid for control. And they did not (pay for control that is).

You can read into it whatever you want to, and it looks like you have, but what you read into it is not what I said. Others are saying they shouldn't have control, or that they abuse their control, or other such things. I did not. I only said you were wrong in saying that they paid for control.

W"Chosen Reject": "I never said they didn't have control. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for it."
---------------------

Ever heard the term "broadcast rights"? The managers of the rink and the NHL, players, and so on, INSIST that those be PAID for. And the rink will put you in some sort of penalty box for trying to broadcast free-lance. Now, I'd like you to EXACTLY deny that is not the case. Just, as the French say, "pour rire", as you are only repeating.

Yes, I've heard of broadcast rights, and you are using them incorrectly here. Someone pays for broadcast rights, it's true. But the ones paying for broadcast rights are the broadcasters. They pay for it because the NHL (or some other entity) owns (and controls) the copyright, and by doing so they are paying the copyright owners for permission to make the broadcast of that copyrighted work.

But here's where you are hung up for some reason: the owner of the copyrighted work did not pay for that control. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

The owner paid to create the content.
The owner owns the copyright of that content by default. No payment necessary.
Broadcasters want broadcast rights (which they pay for) because the copyright owner has control (which he didn't pay for) over the content (which he did pay for). Things are getting paid for and control is had. I'm not disputing these things. You said they paid for control. I'm saying of all the things that were paid for, control is not one of them so you are wrong on that point.

Broadcast rights do not give the broadcaster any control (the WIPO broadcast treaty was never signed as far as I am aware). They simply give the broadcaster permission to broadcast the copyrighted works. Which means they pay for permission, not control.

The copyright owner owns the broadcast rights simply because he owns the copyright which means he can control who broadcasts the content. But he didn't pay for that control. The copyright is the control and that is automatic; no payment necessary.

The copyright owner does pay for the content creation. The broadcaster pays for permission to broadcast that content. Those are the things paid for. The thing not paid for is the copyrights, which are the controls.

Ergo, you were wrong when you said they paid for control. Nobody paid for control. Somebody paid for creation, somebody else paid for permission. No one paid for control.

How much did they pay for that control/copyright? Nothing. It comes automatically.

Did they pay for control? No, because there was nothing to pay.

Deny it or don't, you were wrong. Maybe you misspoke, but if that was the case, certainly it would have been wiser to admit that at the beginning and just admit that you simply meant that they had control, no payment necessary, or whatever it was that you meant. Or were you genuinely wrong in thinking that they needed to pay in order to gain the copyright controls?

Look. Some "they" PAID for everything INCLUDING control. You can't have copyright unless some entity creates it. At most basic, that entity has operating costs integral to existence and ownership and production. Besides the broadcast rights bit, which you haven't brushed aside, silly.

Therefore "they" PAID for control. It's inherent and integral in mere operation. Not a technicality or an odd way of looking at it, just plain obvious. You aren't going to just make up your own hair-splitting to end up "right". I'm not going to concede a bit. -- Though may drop it here to pursue in some other thread. This one is played out for audience is why.

Actually several "they"s paid for different things. The copyright owners paid for the content creation. The broadcasters paid the copyright owners for permission to broadcast that content, but the broadcasters didn't pay for control because they have none, only permission. I can only assume you brought broadcast rights up to derail the conversation or because you don't understand broadcast rights. No control is transferred to broadcasters upon payment, only permission.

The content creators paid for the creation of the content, not the control. If there was no copyrights to grant that control, the content would have cost the same amount, or if copyright control did require payment, they would have had to pay for that in addition to the costs of the content creation, so those two costs are totally and completely separate. As it is, there is no cost to copyright content. The content itself might have costs associated with it, but the copyright does not.

If you are so sure that, as you put it, "they've PAID for that control", please enumerate who it was that paid for "that control", what "that control" is, and even a guess as to how much "that control" cost.

@ "Chosen Reject": What, did you give up when one more try might make me cave? -- I getcha now. Someone owns a stewpot, someone a stove, someone has beef, others bring vegetables, and viola! (The viola is for entertainment while it cooks.) Le voila! C'est un ragout! -- See, nobody actually paid for a stew but there it is. Am I close?

Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

"Try to grasp that those producing content are justified in controlling it. Or, when it affects you, do we just throw private property out the window? -- In short, regardless how much you like hockey and I despise it, they've PAID for that control, you haven't. -- And won't, just yell and steal."

Except we now live in an era where pretty much everybody has the technology to copy/broadcast/stream their content. It means the copyright holder's control is now meaningless.

So basically, you support these guys who are making it impossible for someone to watch their local team legitimately.

Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

"Broadcasts are only possible IF whoever sees a buck in it. Disagree with them all you want that they're mistaken dinosaurs, won't sway their views."

please, if the NHL didnt have the right to broadcast someone else would and if no one wanted it the team could do it themselves like a fucking HS football team.

Like you said millions of people want to watch this shit. If no corporation held the rights you would see a hundred ametuer broadcasters sitting front row with cameras.

You call the people who want to watch it childish and then say if the people who don't own the rights to broadcast don't make as much money as they hope they will go home. Fuck um we don't need um.

If you can't make money broadcasting the games let someone else try I am sure people would line up around the block for the television rights for any NHL team. This backasswards lets piss off our fans so they are more likely to come to our games strategy is the only childish thing in play here.

Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

"This is again a DEMAND to be entertained, for free, and the childish notion that it must be /obeyed/"

First of all its a sports team, the whole purpose is to be entertain people. Second no one is demanding its free they are demanding they be allowed to watch the game. If not enough people buy tickets the whole local area can't watch the game, whether they have cable or not. So if I am stuck at home with my newborn and I want to watch the game on the cable tv I pay for I can't because attendance is down. So I can either not watch to game, or look online. If there was a legal option I would take it, but i cant go to the game and they deny me any other access.

You will yell and demand that you are right whether you know what your talking about or not won't you?

Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

@"HothMonster": "If there was a legal option I would take it, but i cant go to the game and they deny me any other access."

You repeating my point more explictly helps, so thanks.

You do NOT have a right to watch the game. They have the power to prevent you, technical and legal. I don't care beans about the contest that's so stupid that it can amuse a dog, needs only to show motion. But fact is, someone DOES pay for the "rights" to broadcast it, and you do NOT, so have NO say in how whoever controls it sees fit to restrict it.

Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

You see here is where you are wrong.

"They have the power to prevent you, technical and legal."
They can legally prevent me from watching it yes, but they can't actually prevent me from watching it. Cry cry cry all they want they are not going to stomp out every unauthorized feed.

So here are their options allow me to pay for it or someone else can get the page views. Its that simple. I don't care whats legal, I go to 20+ hockey games a year if they think they can stop me from watching one of the ones I am not at that is laughable. So while I have no say in how they see fit to restrict it I feel no moral obligation to comply with their wishes just as they feel no obligation to allow a sports team to do its job and entertain people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '&quot;unauthorized&quot; streaming' come from then?

@"HothMonster": "I don't care whats legal" -- Ah, we've come to that: it's the actual topic. The DOJ and content owners are trying to make you care, see? And they quite bluntly don't care what's legal, either! Why should they? You're a self proclaimed anarchist. While your risk remains low, you can thumb your nose bravely. Problem is that your efforts to see hockey and such without paying have have led to a crackdown by moneyed interests. -- I'll expand on that more elsewhere, got distracted...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '&quot;unauthorized&quot; streaming' come from then?

Yes me watching hockey when someone says I cant = anarchy
Secondly in reference to your anarchy statement. People watching hockey at home is a CIVIL(to borrow a device you overuse) offense. I'm pretty sure civil offenses don't really get you much props with the anarchists.

"your efforts to see hockey and such without paying"

You keep saying this even though its been pointed out time and time again that is not what we are talking about. I share fucking season tickets, like I said 20* games a year, I am happy to pay and do pay. These Dallas fans are happy to pay, some people pay 160 a month for cable packages specifically for hockey and still can't watch the game.

It is about them not offering a option to pay AND not letting us watch it for free. Saying "10k more of you didn't buy tickets not millions of you can't watch the game" is ludicrous, impractical and frankly a bad business move.

I know you like to be right, and you like to try and tie everything into your grand vision of the world but how about we stick to the actual argument at hand.

1)People want to watch hockey and are happy to pay to watch it
2)They can not watch their local team
3)They watch it online
4)The cops get involved even though no crimes were committed.

so:
1)This isn't about a refusal to pay. Your whole you don't have the right for free, and piracy evil thing does not apply here so take it elsewhere.
2)As you said its the copyright owners right to play it or not thats fine, but they can't cry "You can't watch it we own that and don't make revenue when you watch it from that source." When they don't offer a source you can watch it from that they approve. Well I guess they can say that but no one will care.
3) thats pretty straight forward an factual but if you want to try to argue about it go ahead.
4)Copyright infringement is a civil issue. If a 3rd party puts up a link, they can file a notice to get it taken down. They could also subpoena the site for the posters address. They could wisely(which is why they dont) go after and stop the actual stream. But sorry these sports blogs are not committing criminal infringement, and its the copyright owners job to enforce their copyright.

If the DOJ wants to find the guy streaming it and finds out he is profiting off it, then they can go ahead and arrest him. But this is what people are protesting about, the government doing the bidding of monied interests despite the fact that its not their job.

@"Hothmonster":
"1)This isn't about a refusal to pay. Your whole you don't have the right for free, and piracy evil thing does not apply here so take it elsewhere.
2)As you said its the copyright owners right to play it or not thats fine..."

Yeah, got that you WOULD pay, but it's irrelevant. Your point #1 runs afoul of #2, obviously. For whatever reason, the content owners don't allow it shown locally. They have the product and means to protect it. You really have nothing to say about that except "WAH! I want my hockey! NOW! Give it to me or I swear I'll pirate it!"

You repeat variations on you're going to steal it, justifying the theft. Since your motive for wanting to watch it are trivial -- necessarily, as it's hockey -- and say that "laws" won't stop you from that morbid obsession, then I reluctantly have to side with the "evil" content creators that maybe you do need tougher enforcement. I think that'd be a widespread conclusion by juries IF forced to decide, and certainly judges are ruling that way. Then I'm upset with you for causing THEM to screw up the internet over /hockey/ and similar trifles. Just try living without it.

Got it

ok so,

"wah i want my hockey" = i should be punished

and

"wah I don't want anyone in market X to watch this game because its mine" = the government should do what I want and enforce my copyright for me despite it being a civil matter and there are ways I can handle this myself

You argument seems to be repeated variations on "its the law" therefore its the law. Even though again this is none of the DOJ concern until the site fails to comply with your precious "law". Not to mention "its the law" doesn't not mean it should be the law but,

""laws" won't stop you from that morbid obsession[aw cute, watching sports is morbid, hey sports fan your a weirdo!], then I reluctantly have to side with the "evil" content creators that maybe you do need tougher enforcement"

Side with them in what? That they can buy agents of the federal government to enforce their copyright even though its a civil claim and spend millions to have lobbyists outright lie to congress to try and get them to pass self serving laws? That's awful noble of you.

"Then I'm upset with you for causing THEM to screw up the internet over /hockey/ and similar trifles."

Really? How dare I make them stop trying to pretend its 1980.

But its cool you wanna play the: I'm a better person then you because I follow all the rules no matter what angle, and throw in some your a weirdo for your interests. Because people wanting to watching hockey is a valid reason to take all their money and send them to jail. I'm the weirdo in this.

While you are correct to say that currently, the action itself is allegedly criminally illegal, why should people accept the status quo just because the corporations want it that way?

Isn't it inherently wrong to subjugate the market's will? Kind of going against the idea of a free market. Buyers want what the buyers want, and if the seller doesn't sell, they should and will always find another.

Somehow it seems that people have long forgotten the point of a government serving the citizens. If and when they do wake up, they will realise that they don't have to take whatever the corporations and government are forcing down their throat.

As a fan of the Chicago Blackhawks living in middle Georgia, I am fortunate that their games are very rarely blacked out. Does annoy me when the game is on Versus and I'm not at home yet can't watch the game because it's on Versus. I've written the NHL several times about this and have yet to receive any kind of answer.

Re: Dammit!!!

And why don't SB Nation and other sites point out to the Justice Department that, under the DMCA safe harbors, there is a clear process for the removal of links to infringing content -- and it also provides safe harbors for the sites themselves?

Because the government doesn't give a shit about the law. If these sites didn't kowtow to the feds, ICE would probably seize their domains regardless of the legality of doing so.

honestly, i don't have any major issues with my self-imposed boycott of the movie, publishing and music industries because, let's face it, most of what they produce is complete crap. on a day-to-day basis, it is not a hardship for me to not subscribe to starz.

i have no issues with *content producers* going after infringing *content*.

but this, this is something that i love. i love hockey. i am a season ticket holder for the stars. season 18, 205 days, 82 games. my life goes on hold when hockey season starts. i want to support my team. i buy their merchandise, support the arena and drag non-hockey folks to games.

this is disgusting in the very sense of the ideals that made this country great. made even more so when you take into account the horrendous efforts of the dallas stars organization in particular and the nhl in general to sell their product in a market that was just named as one of the top sports cities in the country. "connect with your fans" is not even in their vocabulary. their radio partner's afternoon drive time duo thinks that joe lewis arena is in st. louis and their mid-day broadcasting team can't be bothered to talk hockey while broadcasting at a stars event while talking to a stars hockey player. they want people in the seats. so do i. (it is freaking cold in the aac when only 2000 people show up!) but the folks on defending big d, you morons, are not the people you are trying to bring into the arena because they are all ready there if they can be (they are in my section).

so, it is time. put up or shut up. and i hate that it was the nhl that made that time come.

My guess is that the Justice Department and ICE, via Operation In Our Sites, are trying to imply criminal copyright infringement here (otherwise, why else would the DOJ be involved?). But that's a much higher bar, and it's unlikely that a comment could be criminal copyright infringement.

You think so Inspector Clouseau?

The link itself would have to be for profit, for starters. And while SB Nation or the site might make money, that's entirely separate from the action of the user. Either way, this is quite worrisome and seems like a massive step out of bounds by the Justice Department.

Big apologist disconnect here. Part of the enticement to the site (which in turn generates revenue) is that the board they run acts as a clearinghouse to unlawfully access copyrighted content. If that's central to the website's operation, which I understand it is, then they have a problem. Also I find it hard to believe that the company has never received a DMCA takedown notice. My guess is that earlier notices have been dismissed with these guys washing their hands in the Holy Water; stating it's the commenters problem, not that of the clearinghouse they run. Those days are over boys and girls.

protecting their cable...

"All this to say they are protecting their cable and satellite partners by trying to force you not to become a cord-cutter."

This is an important point: Can you prevent cord-cutting with measures such as these. I would say no. As was mentioned earlier, preventing 'local viewers' from accessing content via these measures does nothing to prevent 'piracy'.